Bloch

When the Naked Encounters the Sacred:
The Two Paradigms of the Prohibition to Recite

Holy Words in the Presence of ‘Ervah
Emmanuel Bloch*
According to an oft quoted talmudic passage (b. Ber. 24a), a woman’s skin,
thigh, hair and voice are all considered nakedness (‘ervah). Our article will
use this brief sugya as a springboard for an in-depth analysis of the halakhic
prohibition to recite holy words in the presence of nakedness, as understood
in talmudic and rabbinic times.
Our investigation will be divided into two parts. The first part will
consist of a diachronic analysis showing that the same prohibition has been
conceptualized in two distinct ways (“paradigms”), as well as two slightly
less important subvariants, in the relevant sources. Identifying correctly the
paradigm employed in a specific passage dealing with prayer and human
nudity is essential in order to accurately comprehend the significance of
the text.
Philological tools, inasmuch as they shed useful light on the topic,
will be employed in this part of the investigation, but the first and foremost
focus will be conceptual: our contention is that each paradigm embodies a
fundamentally different vision of the offense generated by being naked in
the presence of the sacred, as reflected by the halakhic norms applicable in
each situation.
The objective of the second part of the article will be to frame the un-
folding evolution of the interdiction within two ongoing, important scholarly
discussions on rabbinic thought. While these two discussions intersect in
* I am most grateful to Profs. Benjamin Brown, Suzanne Last Stone, and Barry
Wimpfheimer, as well as to the anonymous reviewer, for their helpful comments
on earlier drafts of this article. Naturally, I remain responsible for any mistakes
still present.
[Diné Israel, Volume 34 (2020) (5781), pp. 141*-172*]

Emmanuel Bloch* 142*
various respects, they nevertheless rely on largely different sets of interpretive

lenses and critical tools and therefore need to be formally distinguished.
The first strand of scholarship seeks to delineate the broader contextual and
comparative contours of the rabbinic discourse on the human body, gender,
sex and sexuality, the self, etc. It underscores the commonalities exhibited
with Greco-Roman, Western Christian, and/or Sasanian traditions and
views the rabbinic assumptions about sexuality and the body as culturally
informed by, and connected to, the neighboring cultures’ own attitudes to
these questions. The second avenue of research, on the other hand, focuses
on processes of internalization which it considers to be characteristic of a
new discourse of subjectivity in late antique religious sensibilities.
As we will demonstrate, the analysis of the prohibition to pray in the
presence of nakedness may serve as a test case for the conceptual frameworks
developed by these scholars. While largely confirming their theoretical
relevance and hermeneutical fruitfulness, the article will nevertheless suggest
that the evolution of the prohibition to recite holy words in the presence of
‘ervah evinces oddities that have been insufficiently addressed until now.
Part 1:
Diachronic Analysis of the Prohibition
A preliminary presentation of the sugya from b. Berakhot 24a will lead us to

examine some of its most immediate difficulties.1
1 Since the relevant passage is relatively short, I quote it here in full. The English
translation is generally taken from the 1961 edition of the Soncino Babylonian
Talmud, with a few minor emendations wherever I felt that a more literal ren-
dition was necessary. Since I am primarily interested in the macro-level, I have
only footnoted the variants, as found in the Soncino Printing (1484) and in MSS
Munich 95, Oxford Opp. Add. Fol. 23, Florence II-I-7, and Paris 671 (from the
Henkind Talmud Text Databank), when I found them to be particularly relevant.
For a synoptic table of the variants, see Aaron Amit, “The Origin, Meaning, and
Development of the Ervah Sugya in Bavli Berakhot 24a,” Okimta 3 (2015): 11–25
(19–20) (Hebrew). Also relevant is Amit’s classification of the extant manuscripts
on tractate Berakhot into two major families: according to him, the witnesses of
the “Florence/Print branch” have better preserved the original order of the
amoraic statements than those of the “Paris/Munich branch” (p. 20; and see
references to his previous publications on 20 n. 27 as well as on 12 n. 5).
143* When the Naked Encounters the Sacred
1. Female Body Parts Defined as Nakedness: A First Introduction

‫ והא א״ר ששת למה‬3‫ אילימא לאסתכולי בה‬2‫א״ר יצחק טפח באשה ערוה למאי‬
8
‫ לומר לך כל המסתכל‬7‫ עם תכשיטין שבפנים‬6‫ שבחוץ‬5‫ תכשיטין‬4‫מנה הכתוב‬
10
.‫ אלא באשתו ולק״ש‬9‫באצבע קטנה של אשה כאילו מסתכל במקום התורף‬
R. Isaac said: A handbreadth [exposed] in a woman constitutes

nakedness. In which way? Shall I say, if one gazes at it? But has
not R. Sheshet [already] said: Why did Scripture enumerate the
ornaments worn outside the clothes with those worn inside?
To tell you that if one gazes at the little finger of a woman, it is
as if he gazed at her secret place? No, it means, in one’s own
wife, and when he recites the Shema.
‫ ב) גלי שוק עברי נהרות‬,‫ באשה ערוה שנאמר (ישעיהו מז‬12‫ שוק‬11‫אמר רב חסדא‬
‫ אמר שמואל קול באשה‬13‫ ג) תגל ערותך וגם תראה חרפתך‬,‫וכתיב (ישעיהו מז‬
‫ יד) כי קולך ערב ומראך נאוה אמר רב ששת שער‬,‫ערוה שנא' (שיר השירים ב‬
.‫ א) שערך כעדר העזים‬,‫באשה ערוה שנא' (שיר השירים ד‬
Rav Ḥisda said: A woman’s leg is nakedness, as it says: “Uncover

the leg, pass through the rivers” (Isa 47:2), and it says afterwards:
2 MS Munich: ‫למאי הלכתא‬.

3 MS Oxford: ‫ביה‬.
4 MS Oxford: ‫הב'ה‬.
5 MS Oxford adds here: ‫לאשה‬.
6 MS Oxford adds here examples from the biblical text: ‫אצעדה וצמיד טבעת‬.
7 MS Oxford adds here examples from the biblical text: ‫עגיל וכומז‬. The version in
MS Paris is similar but more expansive: ‫אצעדה וצמיד טבעת עגיל וכומז עגיל זה דפוס‬
‫של דדים כומז זה מקום של כומז זמה‬.
8 MS Munich adds here: ‫'אפי‬.
9 MSS Florence and Munich: ‫התורפה‬.
10 MS Munich initially attempts to prohibit learning Torah in the presence of nudity
and reads here: ‫אלא באשתו ובדברי תורה לישנא אחרינא לא קשיא הא באשתו ובק״ש‬.
11 In MSS Munich and Paris the tradental composition differs, and Rav Sheshet’s
ruling is mentioned before Rav Ḥisda’s and Shemuel’s rulings; however, as noted
above, the order preserved in MS Florence and the print likely better reflects the
original composition of the passage.
12 MS Oxford: ‫שוב‬. This is likely to be a scribal error.
13 MS Munich adds here: ‫מה גל[וי] האמור שם ערוה אף גל[וי] האמור כאן ערוה‬.
“Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be

seen” (Isa 47:3). Shemuel said: A woman’s voice is nakedness,
as it says: “For sweet is thy voice and thy countenance is
comely” (Song of Songs 2:14). R. Sheshet said: A woman’s
hair is nakedness, as it says: “Thy hair is like a flock of goats”
(Song of Songs 4:1).
Thus, the sugya lists a number of amoraic rulings which all employ the term
‘ervah, presumably to assimilate rhetorically certain parts of the female body
to (her) genitalia: a handbreadth (tefaḥ) of exposed skin, the thigh/leg (shoq),
the voice (qol),14 and the hair (se‘ar). Additionally, a later editorial comment
applies these teachings (or, possibly, only the first memra)15 to the specific
context of the recitation of the Shema.
This brief textual passage forms part of the Bavli’s discussion on the
third chapter of Berakhot, which enumerates some of the conditions to be
met for the recitation of the Shema. Most relevant for our study is the general
requirement not to be naked at the moment of qeri’at Shema, presented by the
Mishnah in the scenario of a person descending to immerse, fully unclothed,
14 There are other talmudic passages which deal with qol be-ishah but from a different
standpoint: if the scriptural link in b. Ber. 24a suggests a woman singing, in b.
Qidd. 70a the reference seems to be a woman speaking to a man; see also b. Soṭah
48a (mixed choral singing) and y. Ḥal. 2:1 (woman speaking). According to Aaron
Amit, “Give My Regards to Yalta: Is Kol Ishah (A Woman’s Voice) Mentioned
in Kiddushin 70a–b,” Sidra 30 (2015): 121–31 (Hebrew), the concept appeared
initially in our sugya, and was only later included in tractate Qiddushin, with
the consequence of potentially prohibiting a man from listening to a woman’s
speech.
15 The two readings of the sugya can be defended, as reflected in the diverging
positions taken by the traditional medieval commentators: one school of thought
explained the entire passage in the context of the recitation of the Shema (Cf. Behag
siman 1, p. 44; Rosh Berakhot 3:37; Ra’avyah and R. Hai Gaon, both quoted in the
Mordekhai’s commentary on Berakhot 24a; R. Eliezer of Metz in Sefer Yere’im 392,
and many others), while another group distinguished between the first memra
(handbreadth of skin) and the other three (leg, voice, and hair), and suggested
that only the first amoraic teaching should be read in connection to the Shema (cf.
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hil. Issurei Bi’ah 21:2; Teshuvot ha-Ge’onim [Sha‘arei
Teshuvah], siman 29; Sefer ha-Eshkol, Hil. ‘Avodah Zarah p. 192a; with some minor
differences between them). Finally, the outlier position of the Rif must be noted:
he skipped the passage entirely, possibly because he considered it to be aggadic
and not halakhic in nature (see his Halakhot, printed at the back of the Talmud
in the standard Vilna edition, p. 15a).
just prior to the rising of the sun (according to one opinion, the ideal time for
the recitation of the Shema).16 Similarly, the talmudic discussion immediately
prior to our passage from b. Ber. 24a17 tackles the permissibility of reciting
the Shema while laying naked in bed with one’s wife or other hypothetical
bedmates.18
Thus, the general thrust of this small textual passage, as it stands
finally redacted in the Bavli, seems relatively unambiguous: a Jewish male
is forbidden to accomplish the biblical commandment of reciting the Shema
while looking at some areas of the female anatomy (her exposed skin, at the
very least) understood by the rabbis to constitute nakedness.19
Nowhere else does the Bavli rule that certain zones of the female body
are halakhically considered ‘ervah, but one parallel passage does exist in the
Yerushalmi.20 There, however, the context is the rabbinic commandment of
reciting the blessing on setting aside the ḥallah portion of the dough,21 and the
Yerushalmi only mentions Shemuel’s teaching on the female voice but omits
the other three amoraic teachings on a woman’s skin, thigh, and hair. Still,
minor differences notwithstanding, both Talmudim introduce the concept of
16 See m. Ber. 3:5. Other conditions listed in the same source include the absence
of foul water, “steeping water,” excrement, etc.
17 However, the transition from one topic to the next on b. Ber. 24a seems less
than smooth. See Amit’s rigorous philological analysis in “Origin, Meaning,
and Development of the Ervah Sugya,” which shows that our textual passage
was initially a Babylonian sugya on m. Ḥal. 2:3. Then, owing to the absence of a
commentary on tractate Ḥallah in the Bavli, a later editor inserted the reworked
passage, somewhat artificially, in the related context of the recitation of the
Shema.
18 On the widespread tendency, before the early modern age, to share one’s bed
overnight, see A. Roger Ekirch, At Day’s Close: Night in Times Past (New York:
Norton, 2005), especially 279–84.
19 As duly noted by Rachel Neis, The Sense of Sight in Rabbinic Culture: Jewish
Ways of Seeing in Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013),
118–20 and Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, “The Nakedness of a Woman’s Voice, the
Pleasure in a Man’s Mouth – an Oral History of Ancient Judaism,” in Off with Her
Head! The Denial of Women’s Identity in Myth, Religion, and Culture, ed. Howard
Eilberg-Schwartz and Wendy Doniger (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1995), 167.
20 Y. Ḥal. 2:1 (58c).
21 See Neis, Sense of Sight, 118–20, as well as Amit, “Origin, Meaning, and Devel-
opment of the Ervah Sugya,” 15–16.
female ‘ervah in the context of the prohibition to recite “holy words” (whether
the biblical Shema or rabbinic blessings) in the presence of a scene of nudity.
2. Three Questions on B. Berakhot 24a

But this initial reading of the sugya raises a number of interrogations. As
noted earlier in passing, the prohibition to recite holy words in the presence
of nakedness is hardly an amoraic innovation; it is already enunciated in
numerous tannaitic texts, which similarly forbid the utterance of a blessing
or the Shema22 when confronted with nudity.
For instance, a fully naked person may not set aside her terumah because
she cannot recite the prescribed blessing in her state of undress.23 Conversely,
nakedness is not an issue when taking demai, a rabbinically prescribed tithe
of the agricultural produce set aside in certain cases of doubt, precisely
because no blessing needs to be recited in this situation.24 The Tosefta even
gives a description of the proper religious conduct in public baths, where
people are often naked and praying is fraught with difficulties.25
Bearing in mind the antiquity of the original prohibition, how are we to
understand the significance of our passage? Should we infer that the sugya
from b. Ber. 24a amounts to a simple extension of the content of ‘ervah, now
creatively understood to include certain non-genital areas of the female body,
all things remaining otherwise equal in the prohibition’s modus operandi?
Hardly. In our opinion, the female variety of ‘ervah introduced by the
sugya marks a small revolution in the way the prohibition to recite “holy
words in the presence of nakedness” actually operates. To better assess the
significance of the sugya from b. Ber. 24a, we will now raise a triple set of
questions, each one shedding light from a different perspective on our passage.
The first interrogation is also the most obvious: to what extent is the
prohibition actually dependent on the presence of a woman? On the one
hand, b. Ber. 24a links the rule specifically to the female body: her exposed
22 The recitation of the silent prayer (‘Amidah) is also part of the discussion, but
the latter is conceptually a separate case, as it is subject to even stricter rules;
on this point, see Uri Ehrlich, The Nonverbal Language of Prayer: A New Approach
to Jewish Liturgy, trans. Dena Rodan (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 221–31.
23 M. Ter. 1:6 and t. Ter. 3:1.
24 M. Demai 1:4.
25 T. Ber. 2:20.
skin, legs, hair, and voice. No similar teachings exist with respect to the male
body, and as a result a man’s legs, hair, etc., are never considered nakedness.
On the other hand, all tannaitic sources,26 without any exception, clearly
apply the prohibition in ways not especially associated with the female body.
And a similar situation exists in more recent strata of the talmudic literature:
an ‘ervah situation arises, even though no woman is present on the scene,
when one man is naked in front of another;27 or when a person is alone and
partially clothed but “his heart sees his nakedness,” i.e., there is no proper
separation between the upper and lower parts of the body;28 and so forth.
How can we explain that all other forms of ‘ervah are androgynous while
the variants discussed on b. Ber. 24a are specifically female?
Second, the scope of the prohibition seems to vary greatly. Taking a
broad interpretation, the sugya in b. Ber. 24a suggests that even very innocuous
sights, like a handbreadth of exposed skin, is enough nakedness to impede
the recitation of the Shema. But many other older teachings are far less
prudish, wherein the most minimal coverage of the genital area suffices to
permit setting aside the terumah and reciting its accompanying blessing.29 In
the most extreme case, an entirely naked woman is authorized to set aside
the ḥallah and to recite the appropriate blessing, provided she sits down
and hides her genitals.30 The contrast between the few inches of exposed
skin (forbidden) and the entirely unclothed but sitting female (permitted)
could not be starker.
26 Such tannaitic sources include m. Ter. 1:6; m. Demai 1:4; m. Ber. 3:5; t. Ber. 2:14–16,
21; m. Ḥal. 2:3; and t. Ter. 3:1. Note that m. Ḥal. 2:3 differentiates between female
nudity and male nudity since the anatomical differences between the two
sexes impact the law (female genitalia can be covered by sitting down, male
genitalia cannot), but the presence of a woman remains entirely incidental to
the application of the prohibition. To these, one should add a couple of baraitot
quoted in the Talmud: b. Ber. 24b, on the practical dilemma of a person naked
in bed who is too cold to stick his head out of his garment to recite the Shema;
b. Ber. 25b, which discusses whether one may recite the Shema when naked in
clear or sullied waters; and b. Sukkah 10b, which analyzes whether one may
stand naked in one’s house, stick one’s head outside, and recite the Shema.
27 See b. Ber. 25b.
28 B. Ber. 24b and 25b; see below for an analysis of these teachings.
29 T. Ter. 3:2 mentions straw, hay, and “anything else” (u-bekhol davar); and even
(clear!) water suffices for m. Ber. 3:5.
30 M. Ḥal. 2:3.
Third, the criterion employed by the amoraic rulings on b. Ber. 24a

seems rather vague. Whether we assume that the sages’ motivation was to
rhetorically assert that certain parts of the female anatomy are as sexual as her
genitalia, to discourage men from looking lustfully after them, or to prohibit
the recitation of the Shema when these areas are exposed makes no difference
here. The question remains: why not include other limbs in the discussion?
For instance, are we to infer, from the Gemara’s failure to mention them,
that the breasts do not constitute ‘ervah? The list of body parts, as it stands,
seems partial to the point of arbitrariness; moreover, it is not at all obvious
why the mere sound of a female voice should constitute ‘ervah.
A closer examination of the concept of ervah, which underlies the pro-
hibition to recite holy words in the presence of nakedness, will help clarify
these initial difficulties.
3. Two Divergent Visions of Nakedness

I would like to suggest, at this intermediate stage of the inquiry, that the sources
articulate two different visions of ‘ervah, the first objective/anatomical and
the second subjective/mental: from an objective point of view, nakedness is
minimally understood as genitalia, male or female; from a subjective point
of view, nakedness is understood to refer to any part of the female body that
is sexually arousing for a typical male.
This initial distinction partially dissolves the tensions noted above. Thus,
the answer to the first question—when is the prohibition woman-depen-
dent?—depends on the definition of ‘ervah. Under the objective definition,
the only criterion is the exposure of the genitals: an ‘ervah situation exists
as soon as any given individual, male or female, is completely naked, even
though that person may be utterly alone; the presence of a woman is entirely
incidental to the application of the rule. The subjective definition, on the
other hand, implies the necessary presence of a (relatively) unclad female
representing a potential trigger for the male’s sexual excitement.
The same goes for the second question above: if the scope of the prohibition
seems to vary significantly, it is because one vision of ‘ervah is minimalist while
the other one is maximalist: under the objective definition, even limbs of a
seemingly sexual nature, like a woman’s breasts, are not considered ‘ervah31;
only the genitals, defined in strict anatomical terms, actually qualify. The
31 M. Ḥal. 2:3 clearly proves this point.

second definition, however, is inherently more expansive and dynamic; it

relies on the erotic potential, in the thought of the rabbis at least, of completely
innocuous female body parts.
Finally, regarding the third question (i.e., the criterion for establishing
the amoraic list of rulings), I suggest that the teachings mentioned in b.
Ber. 24a were retained because each sheds light on the limits of heterosexual
stimulation, a critical question under the emergent subjective definition of
‘ervah. From this perspective, the list no longer seems arbitrary or partial.
The omission of the breasts, for instance, is easily explained—their natural
erotic potential is so obvious that it hardly needs to be pointed out under
the subjective definition32 (whereas under the objective definition, breasts
did not constitute ‘ervah at all). The ruling on the female voice, on the other
hand, is included since it clarifies what constitutes marginal heterosexual
stimulation.33 In other words, one key factor in the redaction of this passage
was the need for a precise delineation of the augmented prohibition’s outer
boundaries.34
32 For a study of the idealized female body, and the eroticization of the breasts,
in Middle Persian and rabbinic cultures, see Shai Secunda, “The Construction,
Composition, and Idealization of the Female Body in Rabbinic Literature and
Parallel Iranian Texts: Three Excurses,” Nashim 23 (2012): 60–86, esp. 70–78.
33 We will soon have more to say on the logical reasoning which legitimized the
extension of ‘ervah to the female voice, thus creating an “auditory nakedness.”
In the meantime, note that the sexual appeal of the female voice has also been
analyzed from several other perspectives. Thus, Kosman and Golan approached
this question from a Lacanian/psychoanalytic point of view and claimed that the
rejection of the woman’s voice because of its sexual quality is a formal defense
of male anxiety from the potentially threatening disintegration of law and
order (see Admiel Kosman and Ruth Golan, “‘A Woman’s Voice is ‘Erva’: The
Female’s Voice and Silence – Between the Talmudic Sages and Psychoanalysis,”
in Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity, ed. Marcel Poorthuis and
Joshua Schwartz [Leiden: Brill, 2004], 357–75). Others, however, have rejected the
Freudian psychoanalytic approach as too reductionist; thus, Eilberg-Schwartz
suggested that the eroticization of the female mouth must be understood as part
of a larger cultural process that treats the male mouth as an organ of reproduction
and dissemination. When Jewish masculinity is not about the phallus but about
the mouth, which is the organ of the dissemination of God’s word, connecting
the female mouth to the vagina is a way to reinforce “phallogocentrism.” See
Eilberg-Schwartz, “Nakedness of a Woman’s Voice,” 165–84.
34 This point should not be misconstrued as positing the existence of a universal
eros in the thought of the rabbis. Indeed, it is quite possible that the amoraic
apodictic statements were originally at odds with each other. However, I do
Thus understood, the passage from b. Ber. 24a does not simply extend
the reach of traditional ‘ervah, but rather reconceptualizes its very idea:
initially, the sources from the Mishnah and the Tosefta understood ‘ervah
as a purely objective, anatomical concept, limited exclusively to genitalia,
male or female. A few centuries later, b. Ber. 24a introduced an alternative
vision of ‘ervah, understood this time as a subjective, psychological concept,
and encompassing all female body parts that a typical male finds sexually
arousing.35
But the definition of ‘ervah is just the tip of the iceberg. As the distinction
between objective and subjective ‘ervah resolves our three earlier interrogations,
we must examine how this evolution affects the larger picture of the Jewish
law. To this end, we now turn to analyze two paradigms, each one based on
a different understanding of ‘ervah, of the prohibition “to say holy words in
the presence of nakedness.””
4. One Prohibition, Two Paradigms

On the face of it, the rule prohibiting the recitation of holy words in the presence
of nakedness simply remained in place (i.e., “it is forbidden to pray while in
the presence of an ‘ervah”); behind this fa�ade, however, the introduction of
specifically female forms of ‘ervah completely revolutionized how the rule
operates. To better measure the depth of the change, we will contrast the
two operating paradigms on the basis of the following three parameters.
First, the number of ritual actors: under the objective definition of
‘ervah, the presence of two human beings is entirely unnecessary: one entirely
believe that each statement taken individually, and the entire list as compiled
by the redactor of the sugya, responds to the question of what must be viewed
as marginal heterosexual stimulation.
35 Some authors have noted that the term ‘ervah is not easily translatable into
English. Thus, David Brodsky hesitated whether to render ‘ervah by “vagina” or
by “nakedness” (A Bride Without a Blessing: A Study in the Redaction and Content
of Massekhet Kallah and Its Gemara [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006], 46–47 n. 47).
The realization that the definition of ‘ervah has evolved historically resolves
this issue as well. Thus, in the sources relying on the first paradigm, the best
solution is probably to translate ‘ervah by “sex organs” (since the term was used
in connection with both female and male genitalia). In the sources relying on
the second paradigm, one could arguably use the expression “sexual stimulus.”
Alternatively, and for the sake of simplicity, one may use the broader term
“nakedness” for all sources (and specify explicitly a more precise meaning
whenever the need arises). We have adopted this latter approach in this article.
naked actor, male or female, is perfectly sufficient to trigger the application

of the rule;36 under the subjective definition of ‘ervah, on the other hand, the
presence of two ritual actors, one of them female and the other one male,
becomes a necessity.
Second, the nature of the offense and its solution: under the objective
paradigm, the problem rendering impossible the recitation of holy words
consists in the problematic encounter of the naked and the sacred, together
in an unseparated physical space. Visual perception plays no role in this
equation:37 it is the concomitant presence of the two conflicting elements,
together in one shared place, which triggers the application of the rule.38 The
corresponding solution consists in the carving out of two distinct spaces,
the domain of the naked and the domain of the sacred, either by covering
the genitals39 or by introducing any kind of partition separating between the
sex organs and the sacred.40
Under the subjective paradigm, however, the problematic encounter is
not geographically located, but rather situated within the mind of the would-
be male reciter, who is forbidden to utter a prayer so long as his senses are
assailed by a source of sexual stimulation. Sensory perception is the key factor
in this novel halakhic impediment to the recitation of the Shema. And, while
36 As evidenced by the overwhelming majority of the sources quoted above, which

discuss scenarios where one person is naked and alone: m. Ter. 1:6; m. Demai 1:4;
m. Ber. 3:5; t. Ber. 2:14–15; m. Ḥal. 2:3; and t. Ter. 3:1.
37 As shown by m. Ber. 3:5, which permits (bedi‘avad, but still permits) the recitation
of the Shema when a person is immersed in clear water, even though the genitals
are clearly visible. The parallels with other offenses listed in the same mishnaic
source (excrement, urine, …) also underscore that the problem is a function of
physical proximity.
38 See the baraita quoted in b. Sukkah 10b, which raises the possibility that a naked
person would move her head out of the window and recite the Shema. In such
a scenario, the sex organs remain exposed, and the text presumably examines
whether the “sacred” and the “naked” are now located in different domains,
the first outside and the second inside, thus arguably avoiding a violation of
the prohibition. Such an option is ultimately rejected, presumably owing to the
organic unity of the body, but the source still illustrates that the concern, under
this paradigm, is presence.
39 See t. Ter. 3:1 and t. Ber. 2:14, which consider that straw, hay, and even “anything
else” represent perfectly sufficient coverage of the sex organs.
40 For examples of partitions (as distinguished from coverage of the genitals), see
m. Ber. 3:5; t. Ber. 2:15; as well as the baraita quoted on b. Ber. 24b.
the sight of an unclad woman is the most common trigger for sexual arousal,
other sensory stimuli can arguably accomplish the same result. This logic,
which does not differentiate between visual and auditory stimulations,
goes a long way to explain how Shemuel could rely on the sexual innuendo
perceived in the female voice to extend the boundaries of ‘ervah beyond
a woman’s actual physical body, thus creating, as it were, a paradoxical
construct: the disembodied nakedness.41
The Talmud remains silent on the possible solutions, but later author-
ities, picking up on the sensory nature of the offense, make a number of
corresponding suggestions: close the eyes, look the other way, or remove the
source of erotic stimulation from sight by covering it up.42 Another factor
playing a role in this logical construct is habituation: a male who is constantly
exposed to a given stimulus eventually stops being aroused, and in such a
situation the Shema may be recited.43
Third, the ratio legis: under the objective paradigm, praying in the
presence of an ‘ervah is prohibited because it is considered disrespectful to be
naked in the same physical space as the Divine.44 This idea has long roots: already
41 This opens the door to other possible forms of disembodied nakedness—for

instance, a woman’s odor. The Talmud notes in several instances that some
perfumes can be sexually enticing (cf. b. B. Qam. 16b, in the name of R. Shemuel
bar Naḥmani; b. Šabb. 62b, in the name of Rava son of R. ‘Ilay). While no talmu-
dic sage ruled that a woman’s odor prohibits the recitation of the Shema, the
sixteenth-century Shulḥan ‘Arukh does mention a prohibition against smelling
a forbidden woman’s perfume (Even ha-‘Ezer 21:1).
42 See for instance Pisqei Riaz, Berakhot 3:3:6 (close the eyes); Maimonides, Mishneh
Torah, Hil. Qeri’at Shema 3:16 (turn the face); see also the twentieth-century
Mishnah Berurah 75:1, and the corresponding commentary in the Bi’ur Halakhah,
for a discussion on closing the eyes and turning the face in the writings of several
prominent Aḥaronim. The sources are too numerous to be listed exhaustively.
43 For instance, since men constantly see the faces, hands, and feet of women, those
areas are no longer considered sexually arousing; see Meiri’s commentary, Beit
ha-Beḥirah, Ber. 24a; Ḥiddushei ha-Rashba on Ber. 24a; see also the commentary of
the Mordekhai, ch. 3 par. 90; and the limits set by Mishnah Berurah 75:2. Here
too the sources are many, and a full treatment of habituation as a factor in the
laws of the recitation of the Shema is beyond the scope of this article. Note that
habituation plays no role in the objective paradigm, where the frequency of a
situation does not make the problem less severe.
44 This point is elaborated homiletically in t. Ber. 2:14. Other tannaitic sources
underscore that the essential problem of being naked does not reside in the
erotic potential of the situation, but that nudity is perceived to be undignified
in the written Torah, the priests were prohibited from publicly displaying
their sexual organs; they were enjoined to wear linen breeches to cover their
nudity when “they approach the altar to officiate in the sanctuary,”45 i.e.,
when performing a holy activity. Similarly, Michael Satlow has documented
other tannaitic rules based on the same rationale (i.e., avoiding displays that
are disrespectful to the Divine): someone relieving himself should turn away
and avoid facing the Temple; a person with a Tetragrammaton tattooed on
his flesh should not wash nor immerse for fear of standing naked in front of
the holy Name; a priest may not function at the altar while wearing a tunic
which gives the illusion that he is naked;46 and more.47 Anthropological
research also concurs: Howard Eilberg-Schwartz has noted that even the most
anthropomorphic biblical texts do not present the Godhead as possessing
biological functions like copulation or defecation, for a simple reason: because
of their perceived animalistic nature, these actions were seen as incompatible
with the ancient Hebrew idea of the Divine.48
However, under the subjective paradigm introduced by b. Ber. 24a, the
prohibition’s ratio legis is different: the would-be reciter is forbidden to pray
when he experiences unclean thoughts because he is personally disqualified.
As a result of this new rationale of personal unworthiness, anything perceived
by itself; thus, “one who shames his fellow who is naked is not comparable to
one who shames his fellow who is clothed” (t. B. Qam. 9:12).
45 Exod 28:42–43.
46 See t. Yoma 1:22.
47 Michael L. Satlow, “Jewish Constructions of Nakedness in Late Antiquity,” JBL
116 (1997): 429–54 (432–38).
However, I must disagree with Satlow’s claim that female nakedness, unlike
male nakedness, was not seen as an offense against God (“Jewish Constructions,”
440–44). As far as I can see, the sources draw no distinction between men and
women in this respect. In fact, the only source dealing unequivocally with the
question (m. Ḥal. 2:3) certainly considers female nakedness to be offensive in
a ritual context. No source has been found that authorizes a naked woman
to perform a holy activity. Granted, this is not enough to draw a definitive
conclusion, but the picture is consistent, and the relative textual paucity can
easily be explained by pointing out, with Daniel Boyarin (Carnal Israel: Reading
Sex in Talmudic Culture [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993)], 25–30),
that rabbinic literature is androcentric (it is written by and for men).
48 Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite
Religion and Ancient Judaism (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990),
217.
as sexually provocative can henceforth bar the male beholder from reciting
the Shema—even something as seemingly innocuous (and ubiquitous) as a
woman’s leg, hair, voice, or unclothed skin.
To recapitulate our findings so far: the “objective paradigm” of the tannaitic
prohibition to recite holy words is consistently predicated on the traditional
definition of ‘ervah, understood anatomically as the genitals (male or female);
it necessitates only one ritual actor (female or male), and its essential concern
resides in the offensive encounter of the sacred and the naked, both present
in the same physical space. But the “subjective paradigm” introduced by b.
Ber. 24a is based on a new definition of ‘ervah, understood psychologically
as any area of the female anatomy which a male observer finds erotically
titillating; it necessitates two ritual actors (one female and one male), and
its essential concern resides in a man’s disqualifying lewd thoughts, taken
for the first time as a halakhic impediment to the recitation of the Shema.
These insights are summarized synoptically in the following table.
Objective (old) Subjective (new)

prohibition of ‘Ervah prohibition of ‘Ervah
Halakhic norm Prohibition to pray Prohibition to pray
Number of ritual One Two
actors (female or male) (one male observer, one
observed female)
Description of the Presence Sexual stimulation
offense (Problematic encounter of (Problematic sexual
the Naked and the Sacred, stimulation of the male who
together in an unseparated is therefore forbidden to
physical space) recite holy words)
Solutions Separation / partition Discontinuation of sexual
stimulation
Ratio legis Lack of fitness of the space Lack of fitness of the reciter
These two modi operandi are both internally consistent and at odds with
each other, to the point where one could arguably claim that two different
prohibitions are now grouped together, somewhat deceptively, under the
same umbrella heading.49
49 Some traditional scholars have noticed the existence of two conflicting paradigms
and sought to reconcile them; to this end, they have explored two different
approaches. One suggestion was to distinguish between a biblical ‘ervah and a
rabbinic ‘ervah—the Torah prohibition would cover only the genitals and would
5. The Subjective Paradigm: Broader Historical Perspectives

Before moving on to examine two other groups of sources pertaining to
the prohibition to recite holy words, let us pause for a moment of critical
self-reflection: is the analysis possibly overextended? After all, the entire
existence of the subjective paradigm rests, so far, upon one single textual
passage (b. Ber. 24a), possibly even upon the lone stammaitic comment
applying R. Yitsḥaq’s teaching on the handbreadth of skin to the recitation
of the Shema. Given this alarming paucity of sources, should we not exert a
bit of caution before putting forward grand theories?
If the analysis were indeed limited to the Talmud, the point of criticism
would be well-founded. But the subjective paradigm of the prohibition
is fleshed out more fully in post-talmudic literature. Later generations of
halakhists discuss intensively, sometimes even contentiously, the numerous
questions raised by the emergence of the new modus operandi: which zones
of the female body are so erotically charged that they must be defined as
‘ervah;50 which, on the contrary, are not especially arousing, and therefore
not be linked to sexual thoughts while the rabbinic prohibition would extend
to non-genital but provocative parts of the body (this is a position defended
explicitly by several modern commentators: Menashe Klein, Sefer Mishneh
Halakhot [Brooklyn: Mekhon Mishneh Halakhot Gedolot, 1960], 7:13; Benzion
Lichtman, Bnei Tzion [Jerusalem, 1946], 2:75; Yehuda Henkin, Understanding
Tzniut: Modern Controversies in the Jewish Community [Jerusalem: Urim, 2008],
14–15). Alternatively, and perhaps more simply, a distinction could be made
between two different situations: the objective definition would represent the
baseline and would always be applicable, and the subjective definition would
represent additional requirements applicable only when a man stands in the
visual presence of a woman (see Rashba’s novella to b. Ber. 24a, s.v. Amar Rav
Ḥisda). Both solutions seek to harmonize tensions by applying two definitions
cumulatively: ‘ervah as a non-evolutive two-layered—objective and subjective—
legal concept. They differ, however, in their reasons for distinguishing between
these definitions: the first biblical/rabbinic approach considers the difference
to be religious/juridical, while the second solution sees it as purely casuistic/
situational. None of these solutions account for the vastly different working
mechanisms of the two prohibitions, nor for the temporal gulf separating their
appearance in the halakhic literature.
50 The midrashic text “Pitron Torah,” probably written in the late ninth century or
early tenth century, takes note of the seductive potential of women’s eyes and
faces and considers them to be nakedness (‫ ראיית פנים באשה ערוה‬,‫;)עין באשה ערוה‬
see Ephraim Elimelekh Urbach, Sefer Pitron Torah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978),
Parashat Qedoshim, p. 72.
never prevent the recitation of the Shema;51 which areas originally had the
status of ‘ervah but are now so frequently exposed that the male observer no
longer experiences disqualifying lustful thoughts and may therefore recite
the Shema in their presence;52 whether it is preferable to avert the gaze or to
close the eyes to avoid being sexually stimulated by an ‘ervah;53 etc.
Much more ink is spilled on these questions, but even this brief survey,
which does not exhaust the available material, evidences that the existence
of the subjective paradigm of the prohibition to recite holy words is a
tangible reality in the post-talmudic halakhic literature, and that its various
ramifications are systematically explored.
As can be readily seen, the medieval sources frequently employ elements
of language taken from b. Ber. 24a (most significantly the template ‫באשה ערוה״‬...‫״‬
to signify female forms of nakedness); moreover, the prooftexts used in b.
Ber. 24a, like the verses from Song of Songs, are revisited to support later
Similarly, for R. Elazar of Worms (early 13th century), a male should not recite
the Shema when facing a woman’s exposed upper arms (zero‘a), which are ‘ervah
(Sefer ha-Rokeaḥ, Hil. Tefillah 324 and Hil. Berakhot 345). In the twentieth century,
R. Menashe Klein even rules that a woman’s neck, teeth, and “everything else
mentioned in Shir ha-Shirim,” are considered ‘ervah (see his Mishneh Halakhot
7:244). R. Klein has some medieval sources to bolster his claim, like Rabbi Yehuda
he-Ḥasid’s Sefer Ḥasidim 110 and Rabbenu Yonah’s Sefer ha-Yir’ah siman 73, but
these were written in a non-halakhic context. See also R. Shmuel ha-Levy Wosner,
Shevet ha-Levi 5:197 and 7:10, who does not reach a definitive conclusion.
51 See Meiri’s commentary, Beit ha-Beḥirah, Ber. 24a; Ḥiddushei ha-Rashba on Ber.
24a; Mordekhai’s commentary, ch. 3 par. 90 – all discussed above.
52 Beyond the sources quoted above, see Ben Ish Ḥai’s ruling (Halakhot, Parashat
Bo, p. 86 letter tet) that a woman’s breasts are not considered ‘ervah during
breastfeeding, since it is socially acceptable for a woman to publicly uncover
her chest for this purpose; Mishnah Berurah (75:3), on the other hand, rules
stringently on the same issue. This line of argumentation is also used, in the
nineteenth century, by the Lithuanian authority R. Yeḥiel Mikhel Epstein, who
permits reciting the Shema when facing the exposed hair of a married woman,
since hair covering was so uncommon in his day that the sight of hair would
not cause hirhur (see Arukh ha-Shulḥan, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 75:7). Similar positions are
also defended by R. Ḥayyim Berlin (Shu”t Nishmat Ḥayyim [Jerusalem: Yeshivat
Volozhin, 2008], 1:78–79), R. Yosef Ḥ̣ayyim of Baghdad (Sefer Ḥ̣uqqei Nashim, ch.
17) and others; for more sources, see Mayer Schiller, “The Obligation of Married
Women to Cover Their Hair,” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 30 (1995):
81–108 (106–7).
53 See Pisqei Riaz, Berakhot 3:3:6; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hil. Qeri’at Shema
3:16; Mishnah Berurah 75:1; all discussed above.
rulings; the logical underpinnings of the passage, like the sensory nature
of the offense, are explored and taken to their natural conclusions. Finally,
many of these sources are taken from commentaries on b. Ber. 24a or from its
corresponding sections in the great Codes.54 Where, then, does this subjective
paradigm originate from, if not from our passage from b. Ber. 24a?
In short: the subjective paradigm of the prohibition blossomed over
time, thanks to the creativity of medieval and modern halakhic authorities;
but its first buds were already clearly present in the Talmud.
6. Alternative Versions of the Objective Paradigm

There can hardly be a question that the brunt of the halakhic system’s creativity
was carried, in later centuries, by the subjective paradigm, which proved
itself to be remarkably dynamic and expansive. At the same time, it would
be erroneous to believe that the development of the objective paradigm was
simply abandoned.
For one, the tannaitic sources written under the objective paradigm still
existed, and the later sages resorted to them when a detail of their practical
application was unclear or when two sources contradicted each other.55 And
the ancient feeling of outrage at being naked in the presence of the sacred
clearly persisted even in stammaitic times: for instance, the redactors of the
Bavli refused to read literally Isaiah 20:2–3, which indicates that the prophet
went naked before God, and chose to reinterpret the text to mean that Isaiah
wore worn garments.56
But more significant evolutions can be discerned in amoraic and post-amo-
raic sources, and the following paragraphs switch the focus to examine
two later forms of the prohibition to recite holy words in the presence of
nakedness, both of which redefine partially the operating parameters of the
objective paradigm.
First, let us examine the following amoraic teaching: Rava ruled that a
nakedness covered by something transparent (‘ervah be-‘ashashit: a nakedness
in a lantern) prevents the onlooker from reciting the Shema, a position justi-
fied by invoking the wording of the verse from Deuteronomy 23:15, which
54 Most notably Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim chapter 75.

55 Several examples can be found in b. Ber. 24a, where the amoraim discuss the
halakhic status of pubic hair, the buttocks, and more.
56 B. Yoma 77a.
emphasizes the visibility of the nakedness.57 Can this position be reconciled

with either of the two paradigms analyzed previously? Clearly, this passage
is far removed from the logic of the subjective paradigm, inasmuch as the
offense does not reside in the sexual titillation of the male observer. We must
rather suggest that Rava’s ruling follows the logic of the objective paradigm,
where the offense is constituted by the concomitant presence of the naked
and the sacred in the same physical space.
However, if this is correct, one important caveat must be noted: the
Talmud’s explicit adoption of visibility (and its equally explicit rejection
of coverage) as the defining parameter of the norm effectively reverses the
hierarchy of values classically embodied in the objective paradigm. As we
have seen, in the tannaitic sources, any kind of coverage of the genitalia
effectively resolves the issue. However, in this later variant of the objective
paradigm, the concept of presence is expanded to include a scenario where
the nakedness is separated from the human reciter by a transparent partition.
Rava’s divergence from the classic version of the objective paradigm is
vividly illustrated in his overturning an explicit tannaitic rule: conceptually,
the mishnaic case of a person whose genitals are submerged in clear water58
raises the very same issue as Rava’s discussion of a “nakedness in a lantern”
(i.e., an ‘ervah which is “covered” but still visible). But the rulings, evidently,
are diametrically opposed, since Rava forbids that which the Mishnah had
permitted.59
Significantly, this alternative vision of the objective paradigm is also
fleshed out in the post-talmudic halakhic literature. Thus, later authorities
ruled that a transparent garment, even if only partially see-through, has the
57 B. Ber. 25b:
‫ אסור לקרות קריאת‬,‫ ערוה בעששית‬.‫ מותר לקרות קריאת שמע כנגדה‬,‫ צואה בעששית‬:‫אמר רבא‬
‫ והא‬,‫ צואה בעששית מותר לקרות קריאת שמע כנגדה דצואה בכיסוי תליא מילתא‬.‫שמע כנגדה‬
.‫ ״ולא יראה בך ערות דבר״ אמר רחמנא‬,‫ ערוה בעששית אסור לקרות קריאת שמע כנגדה‬.‫מיכסיא‬
.‫והא קמיתחזיא‬
58 M. Ber. 3:5.
59 Actually, as noted by R. Yaakov Emden in his Mor u-Qtsi‘ah (ch. 75), there is
a difference: the lantern is only partially see-through, whereas the water is
completely transparent. But this distinction actually exacerbates the divergence
between the two teachings: Rava ruled stringently in a situation less problematic
than the case in which the Mishnah ruled leniently.
status of a “lantern” and qualifies as an ‘ashashit; as a result, an ‘ervah, when

visible through a garment, prohibits the onlooker from reciting the Shema.60
Similarly, taking Rava’s visibility criterion as the starting point of their
reflection, several post-talmudic authorities have ruled that the exposed
genitals of a minor represent an impediment to the recitation of the Shema;61
by doing so, they implicitly asserted that the visibility of the minor’s sexual
organs effectively trumps their immature physical development, and overturned
another tannaitic rule which viewed a minor’s unclothed genitalia as
unproblematic under the objective paradigm.62 Other medieval authorities
remained faithful to the classic definition of the objective paradigm and
logically upheld the Tosefta’s ruling.63
So far, the implications of Rava’s ruling have been presented as a partial
recasting of the objective paradigm. But one could suggest that the contours
of this alternative form of the objective paradigm are wider still: Rava’s ruling
on a “nakedness in a lantern” is arguably part of a small group of teachings
which share the following two elements of commonality: first, they take
the text of Tanakh as their point of departure; second, and as a result, they
partially redefine the reach of the objective paradigm.
Beyond the “nakedness in a lantern” and the visibility criterion derived
from Deuteronomy 23:15,64 a further illustration of the same phenomenon
touches upon the status of a non-Jew’s nakedness. Thus, we find in the name
of Rav Yehudah that a non-Jew’s nakedness is to be considered ‘ervah, and it
60 See Halakhot Gedolot, 44; Magen Avraham on Shulḥan Arukh, introduction to Oraḥ
Ḥayyim 75; Eliyahu Rabba 75:1; R. Yaakov Emden, Mor u-Qtsi‘ah, ch. 75.
61 See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hil. Qeri’at Shema 3:16 (see the commentary of
the Kesef Mishneh, who notes that Maimonides’ ruling on the minor’s genitalia
is derived from Rava’s teaching on b. Ber. 25b); Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 75:4.
62 Cf. t. Ber. 2:16.
63 See Pisqei Riaz, Ber. 3:3:5; Rosh, Ber. 3:35; Aguddah 3:72; and Rama’s gloss on Oraḥ
Ḥayyim 75:4.
64 I have chosen to take at face value the Talmud’s citation of Deut 23:15 as the reason
for Rava’s ruling on the ‘ervah be-‘ashashit, but one could turn this relationship
on its head and argue that the verse merely serves as an asmakhta for the norm.
However, in this second reading, one must admit that the visibility criterion then
took a life of its own in the later medieval extrapolations (see-through garment,
genitalia of a minor). While the truth cannot be proven either way, the merit of
our first reading is to interpret consistently the relationship between the norm
and the visibility criterion anchored in the verse.
is consequently forbidden to recite the Shema in its presence. The stammaitic

editor then comments that this ruling was necessary, lest one misinterpret
the verse in Ezekiel 23:2 to signify that a naked non-Jew is the equivalent of
a naked animal, and therefore religiously unproblematic; this is clearly false,
the editor concludes, since another verse (Gen 9:23) uses the term ‘ervah in
connection to a non-Jew (Noah).65
In other words, the Talmud states that a naked non-Jew is considered
‘ervah because the Torah defines it so. Needless to say, this position clashes with
the logic of the subjective paradigm predicated on erotic titillation,66 but it also
diverges, admittedly more subtly and without modifying any earlier norm,
from the classic logic of the objective paradigm, inasmuch as the tannaitic
sources always relied on an instinctive sense of shame at being naked in the
presence of the divine, and never on verses as prooftexts.67
To this small group of Torah-based rulings, one may want to add the
creative piece of exegesis, advanced by both Talmudim, which pegs the
centuries-old prohibition to recite holy words in the presence of nakedness
to the verse from Deuteronomy 23:15 ("...‫וְ לֹא־יִ ְר ֶאה ְב ָך ֶע ְרוַ ת דָּ ָבר‬..."). By playing
on the word davar (‫ )דבר‬in order to read it as dibbur (‫)דיבור‬, the verse is for
the first time understood in post-amoraic sources to signify that the Shema
or blessings may not be recited when human genitalia (‫ )ערוה‬are exposed.68
To recapitulate: there exists a group of talmudic sources in which local
questions regarding the application of the objective paradigm are analyzed
on the basis of Torah verses; in this alternative approach, the operating
parameters of the objective paradigm are sometimes modified, and tannaitic
65 B. Ber. 25b and b. Šabb. 150a.

66 And for this reason, I must respectfully disagree with Neis (Sense of Sight, 125–26),
for whom this passage implies that gentile nakedness is constructed by the Bavli
as hypersexual and even as animalistically eroticized, as opposed to the more
restrained rabbinic sexuality: as mentioned, the concern of this brief passage is
not the avoidance of erotic fantasies. And, in any event, equating the nakedness
of non-Jews to that of animals is only envisioned rhetorically, as indicated by
the couple of expressions ‫ קמ"ל״‬... ‫ ;״מהו דתימא‬the animalistic identification is
explicitly rejected at the end of the reasoning.
67 One non-halakhic commentator has questioned why the genitals of a non-Jew
should not be considered ‘ervah in the first place. See Barukh ha-Levi Epstein’s
Torah Temimah on Gen 9:23, n. 20.
68 See b. Šabb, 23a and 150a; b. B. Meṣi‘a 114b; y. Ter. 1:4; Sifre Deut. § 258.
norms, developed under the classic definition of the objective paradigm, can
be overturned as a result.
7. His Heart Sees His Nakedness

The second variant of the objective paradigm is referred to by the expression
‫( ״ליבו רואה את הערוה״‬lit., “his heart sees his nakedness”). This phrase appears
only in the Bavli and never in the Yerushalmi or in any other rabbinic text in
antiquity.69 Even in the Bavli, the interdiction of libbo ro’eh was not unanimously
recognized as valid, and the Gemara even suggested solving some disputes
between the sages by positing that they argued precisely on this point: one
rabbi would hold by the principle of “his heart sees his nakedness,” and his
disputant would not. Moreover, according to the Talmud’s conclusion, other
parts of the human body may “see” one’s sex organs without cause for alarm.70
What the principle of “his heart sees his nakedness” implies is as follows:
even though a person cannot physically see his genitals with his eyes, the
recitation of the Shema and other blessings is still forbidden failing an actual
separation between them and the heart. Thus, someone wearing a long tunic
as his sole garment would, under the principle of libbo ro’eh, still not be able
to pronounce holy words, unless he further separates his sex organs from
his heart by means of a belt, for instance.
The principle of libbo ro’eh is clearly predicated, in all its occurrences in the
talmudic sources, on the objective paradigm of the prohibition: it is from the
genitals, male or female, that the heart must be separated, not from any other
organ (leg, skin, or hair). There is no sexual innuendo: it is rather the physical,
unseparated proximity of the heart and the genitals that is cause for alarm.71
69 In fact, this principle is mentioned altogether five times in the entire Talmud Bavli,
all in b. Ber. 24–25. The first scholar to explicitly demonstrate the innovation of
libbo ro’eh in the Talmud Bavli was Saul Lieberman, Tosefta ki-feshuta (Jerusalem:
Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), Berakhot p. 22 line 46 and p.
23, line 48, n. 16. However, as Lieberman himself pointed out, the same idea
was already implicitly hinted at in the writings of earlier thinkers; see, e.g.,
Louis Ginzberg, Perushim ve-Ḥiddushim ba-Yerushalmi (New York: Ktav, 1941–61),
2:283–84, who already refused to interpret a difficult passage in the Yerushalmi
on the basis of the principle of libbo ro’eh.
70 B. Ber. 25b: “His heel may see his nakedness, since the Torah was not given to
angels.”
71 Here, too, I must part ways with Neis, Sense of Sight, 117 and 125, who describes
libbo ro’eh as a way for the rabbis to “trouble the production of gender” and to
With these observations, I have now finished mapping out the prohibition
of “holy words in the presence of nakedness” and its various incarnations in
talmudic sources. This first part has evidenced the existence of two different
paradigms (the first objective and the second subjective), to which one must
add two subvariants of the objective paradigm. This classification is exhaustive,
inasmuch as no relevant teaching has been left out, and internally consistent.
In the second part of this article, I would like to suggest an explanatory frame-
work for the changes observed in the conceptualization of the prohibition.
Part 2:
Accounting for the Evolution of the Prohibition
Christine Hayes made an important contribution to the field of rabbinics when

she critiqued the simple use of external historical facts without taking into
account hermeneutics to account for legal change.72 Informed by her critique,
the second part of this paper will successively tackle both tracks—first the
external, then the internal—and then examine how these approaches may be
combined to illuminate the evolution of the prohibition to recite holy words
in the presence of ‘ervah.
8. The External Track: Historical Context

An impressive body of scholarship, associated notably with the names of
Daniel Boyarin,73 Michael Satlow,74 David Biale,75 Charlotte Fonrobert,76 Ishay
“ocularize” the entirety of the male body (viz., the rabbis attributed a sense of
vision to male body parts other than the eyes). In my view, libbo ro’eh is a Bab-
ylonian extension of the objective paradigm; as such, it is predicated on a logic
of bizzayon and not of hirhur: the problem resides in the concomitant proximity
of the heart and the genitalia, and such an issue could only be solved by means
of a separation or coverage. Gender plays no role in this construct, and neither
does vision, except as a rhetorical artifact.
72 Christine Hayes, Between the Babylonian and the Palestinian Talmuds: Accounting
for Halakhic Difference in Selected Sugyot from Tractate Avodah Zara (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1997), 3–24.
73 Boyarin, Carnal Israel.
74 Michael Satlow, Tasting the Dish: Rabbinic Rhetorics of Sexuality, BJS 303 (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1995); idem, “Jewish Constructions of Nakedness.”
75 David Biale, Eros and the Jews: From Biblical Israel to Contemporary America (New
York: BasicBooks, 1992).
76 Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert, Menstrual Purity: Rabbinic and Christian Reconstructions
Rosen-Zvi,77 Mira Balberg,78 Yishai Kiel,79 Ron Naiweld,80 Rachel Neis81 and
others,82 proposes to analyze the rabbinic perceptions of the body, gender,
sexuality, and more, as emerging from complex processes of negotiation
with the neighboring cultures’ own positions. As we seek to account for the
changes observed in the first part of this article, our goal is now to verify
whether, and to what extent, such an historical framework proves pertinent.
First, the subjective paradigm of the prohibition, predicated on sexual
distraction. The explicit connection between vision and sexual desire in
Jewish sources has been frequently noted by scholars: very aware of the
erotic potential of female nakedness, the rabbis frequently exhorted men not
to look at undressed women lest they be led into sexual misconduct.83 Neis
remarked judiciously that in this respect, the rabbis were really no different
from their neighbors:
By the time we can speak of the early rabbis, somewhere in
the first or second century CE, a panoply of cultural traditions
and practices circulated in the Near East whereby sight, desire,
and sexuality were precariously entangled. Across ancient
of Biblical Gender (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000); eadem, “Regulating

the Human Body: Rabbinic Legal Discourse and the Making of Jewish Gender,”
in The Cambridge Companion for the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, ed. Charlotte
Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2007), 270–94.
77 Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires: “Yetzer Hara” and the Problem of Evil in Late
Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011).
78 Mira Balberg, Purity, Body and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 2014).
79 Yishai Kiel, Sexuality in the Babylonian Talmud: Christian and Sasanian Contexts in
Late Antiquity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016).
80 Ron Naiweld, “Purity of Body, Purity of Self: “Hirhur” in Rabbinic Literature,”
Juda�sme ancien 2 (2014): 209–35.
81 Neis, Sense of Sight.
82 Recent relevant publications include Noah Benjamin Bickart, “Overturning the
Table: The Hidden Meaning of a Talmudic Metaphor for Coitus,” Journal of the
History of Sexuality 25 (2016): 489–507; and David Brodsky, “Thought is Akin
to Action: The Importance of Thought in Zoroastrianism and the Development
of a Babylonian Rabbinic Motif,” in Irano-Judaica VII, ed. Julia Rubanovich and
Geoffrey Herman (Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute, 2019), 145–96.
83 See for instance Satlow, “Jewish Constructions of Nakedness,” 440–41.
sources, from Mesopotamia to Israel to Greece, we find nearly

all looking, whether setting one’s eyes upon a person’s form or
body or the exchange of a glance, could both express and arouse
desire, lust or love. Such notions, and a variety of practices built
thereon persisted into late antiquity and well beyond (…). In
antiquity Greek-speaking novelists and Latin poets capitalized
on them; Jewish and Christian sources attempted to police and
regulate them.84
Indeed, women were often represented as the enticing objects of male gaze
in Greek,85 Roman,86 early Christian,87 and Iranian88 sources. To be sure, the
specific artistic and legal constructions of visual desire varied significantly
from one culture to the next (or even within the same culture), but the existence
of a connection between visual perception and sexual desire seems to have
been universally acknowledged.
84 Neis, Sense of Sight, 113.

85 See for instance Nancy Sorkin Rabinowitz, “Women as Subject and Object of the
Gaze in Tragedy,” Helios 40 (2013): 195–221; Françoise Frontisi-Ducroux, “Eros,
Desire and the Gaze,” in Sexuality in Ancient Art, ed. Nathalie Boymel Kampen
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 81–100; and Andrew Stewart,
Art, Desire and the Body in Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1997).
86 See examples in Marguerite Johnson and Terry Ryan, Sexuality in Greek and Roman
Literature and Society: A Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 2005), 39–60 and Amy
Richlin, “Making Up a Woman: The Face of Roman Gender,” in Off with Her
Head! The Denial of Women’s Identity in Myth, Religion, and Culture, ed. Howard
Eilberg-Schwartz and Wendy Doniger (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1995), 185–214.
87 See Mary Rose D’Angelo, “Veils, Virgins and the Tongues of Men and Angels:
Women’s Heads in Early Christianity,” in Off with Her Head! The Denial of Women’s
Identity in Myth, Religion, and Culture, ed. Howard Eilberg-Schwartz and Wendy
Doniger (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 131–64 and Bernard
Prusak, “Woman Seductive Siren and Source of Sin? Pseudepigraphical Myths
and Christian Origins,” in Religion and Sexism, ed. Rosemary Radford Ruether
(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974), 89–116.
88 For one example from the Pahlavi tradition, see Kiel, Sexuality in the Babylonian
Talmud, 53.
Another observation frequently made is that the erotic gaze was strongly
gendered: men actively looked at women, women were passively looked at;
the reverse was rarely acknowledged.89
With respect to the specifically Babylonian concept of libbo ro’eh, a
Zoroastrian context must also be considered. The study of Middle Persian
literature shows that Zoroastrians used to walk around with a shirt (sabig)
and a belt (kustig), which served to separate between the upper and the lower
halves of the body. Failure to wear these items of clothing was likened to going
about unclothed and was considered a forbidden exposure of genitalia.90 This
practice parallels exactly the requirement implied by libbo ro’eh to separate
the heart from the sex organs.
These findings indeed seem to confirm, as previous scholarship has
asserted, that the rabbinic perceptions of sexuality were situated at the
crossroads of late antique culture. The rise of the subjective paradigm of
the prohibition, as well as of the “libbo ro’eh” subvariant of the objective
paradigm, were likely informed by the neighboring cultures’ own attitudes
to similar questions. While for the rabbis these concerns became embodied
in the halakhic realm, these developments express parallel sensitivities that
ran cross-culturally.
Still, questions remain. The possible Zoroastrian context does not seem
to adequately explain why the Bavli entertained, for instance, that a failure to
separate between the heels and the genitals could lead to a legal prohibition
to recite the Shema.91 More significantly, I am unaware of any contextual
explanation that would account for the emergence of Rava’s visibility criterion
within the objective paradigm of the prohibition.
89 See Neis, Sense of Sight, 116, and Rabinowitz, Women as Subject and Object, 195.
90 See Yaakov Elman, “Middle Persian Culture and Babylonian Sages: Accommodation
and Resistance in the Shaping of Rabbinic Legal Tradition,” in The Cambridge
Companion for the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, ed. Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert
and Martin S. Jaffee (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 165–97
(181–82); Shaul Shaked, “No Talking During a Meal—Zoroastrian Themes in
the Babylonian Talmud,” in The Talmud in Its Iranian Context, ed. Carol Bakhos
and M. Rahim Shayegan (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 161–77.
91 As explained above, the Talmud eventually rejects such a notion but, to use
talmudic jargon, how do we understand the ‫ ?הוא אמינא‬What was the original
concern? If the Persian belt was worn, as local mores mandated, what conceivable
reason was there to even suppose that the exposure of the heels to the genitals
was problematic in the context of the recitation of the Shema?
Furthermore, nudity was not shunned in Greco-Roman religious cere-

monies. For instance, the goddess Aphrodite was occasionally represented
naked (the famous Knidian Aphrodite, which was apparently set up in
an open-air temple, comes to mind), and the statue of the Moschophoros
(Calf-Bearer), a remnant of the Acropolis of Athens which is thought to have
been a votive offering to the goddess Athena, was draped in a cloth that
tellingly left his genitals exposed.92 Granted, this liberal attitude toward the
expression of nudity in spaces of divine worship reflected, in all likelihood,
the Greco-Roman perception of gods and goddesses as having both sexual
organs and sexual partners, whereas the Jewish God was always understood
as entirely asexual.93 Even so, it remains noteworthy that the objective par-
adigm of the prohibition continued unabated, free from any influence from
the different sociocultural sensitivities of the world around.
Clearly, then, the external reality of the world in which the rabbis lived
and thought represents one important piece of the puzzle, but it remains
by itself insufficient to account for the entirety of the diachronic trajectory
of the halakhic prohibition to pray when facing a nakedness. It is therefore
time to shift gears and to evaluate the insights provided by the study of
inner-halakhic developments.
9. The Internal Track: Subjectivization of the Concept of ‘Ervah

Several scholars have noted the emergence, in late rabbinic literature, of
a new “discourse of subjectivity.” This new discourse manifested itself in
the field of aggadah, with a new focus on the inner world, the struggles and
motivations, of the characters described in rabbinic narratology; but also
in halakhah, with the parallel appearance of new legal categories, such as
intention (‫)כוונה‬, thought (‫)מחשבה‬, will (‫)רצון‬, the “sake of Heaven” (‫)לשם שמים‬,
and more.94
92 See Mireille M. Lee, Body, Dress and Identity in Ancient Greece (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 2015), 186–90. Some Jewish sources attest unambiguously
of this encounter with the Greek notion of nudity, even in a semi-religious
context; see for instance m. ‘Avod. Zar. 3:4.
93 See ad. n. 48 above.
94 See Ishay Rosen-Zvi, “Bilhah the Temptress: ‘The Testament of Reuben’ and
‘The Birth of Sexuality’,” JQR 96 (2006): 65–94; idem, Demonic Desires, 62–63,
132–34; Joshua Levinson, The Twice Told Tale: A Poetics of the Exegetical Narrative
in Rabbinic Midrash (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2005), 127–33 (Hebrew); idem, “From
Narrative Practice to Cultural Poetics: Literary Anthropology and the Rabbinic
This insight certainly looks promising for our own research: a case can
easily be made that the diachronic study of the prohibition to recite holy
words in the presence of ‘ervah provides yet another illustration of the general
trend toward more subjectivism. On a broad level, the move from the earlier
objective paradigm, predicated upon an external/anatomical vision of ‘ervah,
to the later subjective paradigm, in which nakedness is understood as an
internal/psychological reality, fits in well with the general picture drawn
by previous scholars.
However, as demonstrated by Rosen-Zvi in his study of the evil impulse
(yetser), closer scrutiny shows the reality to be more complex. Rosen-Zvi’s
textual analysis evidences that the yetser was originally conceived as a demonic
figure with reified characteristics, a quasi-physical entity viewed as almost
part of the human body, and that it is only in late strata of the Bavli that the
yetser became identified with sexual attraction. But the objective conception
of the yetser as an external demonic creature subsisted, in an attenuated
form at least, and was never entirely replaced by the internal conception
of the yetser as the “evil inclination” dwelling in a human being’s heart.
Thus, the human oscillation between sinfulness and righteousness turned
into an intricate battle between the individual and demon-like entities that
are located inside the body but are not completely a part of it, and sexual
attraction became as much a psychological phenomenon as a temptation
originating in external forces.95
Our own textual analysis complicates even further the rise of the new
“discourse of subjectivity” noted by earlier scholarship. Thus, just as in the
process of “internalization” of the evil impulse, the late antique emergence of
the subjective paradigm of the prohibition never fully displaced the objective
paradigm already evident in tannaitic sources. But there is more: where the
Sense of Self,” in Homer and the Bible in the Eyes of Ancient Interpreters, ed. Maren
Niehoff (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 345–67; Eilberg-Schwartz, Savage in Judaism, 195–234;
Reuven Kiperwasser, “Matters of the Heart – the Metamorphosis of the Monolithic
in the Bible to the Fragmented in Rabbinic Thought,” in Judaism and Emotion:
Texts, Performance, Experience, ed. Sarah Ross, Gabriel Levy, and Soham Al-Suadi
(New York: Peter Lang, 2013), 43–59; Ephraim Elimelekh Urbach, Ha-Halakhah,
Mekoroteha ve-Hitpatḥutah (Jerusalem: Yad la-Talmud, 1984), 124. For a different
approach based on the dual concepts of nominalism and realism, see Christine
E. Hayes, What’s Divine About Divine Law? Early Perspectives (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2015), 195–245.
95 Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires, 63–64 and 132–34.
external demonic vision of the yetser merely subsisted in a weaker form, the
objective paradigm of the prohibition to recite holy words retained enough
vitality to sustain two later developments, i.e., Rava’s visibility criterion and
the Babylonian variant called “libbo ro’eh.” Furthermore, another specific
element in the subjectivization of ‘ervah consists in its temporal dimensions:
while our study has identified early indications of the subjective paradigm
in a handful of amoraic apodictic statements, it has concluded that the
paradigm blossomed over time, thanks to the creativity of medieval and
modern halakhic authorities. Arguably, the process of internalization of ‘ervah
was not concluded until all the implications of the subjective paradigm were
systematically explored, centuries after the process began.
In a nutshell: the late antique rabbinic “discourse of subjectivity” serves
as a useful prism through which the trajectory of the prohibition to recite
holy words in the presence of ‘ervah can be better understood. The analysis
confirms the conclusions reached by earlier scholarship regarding the general
move from objectivism to subjectivism, but it also evidences the existence
of specific elements unique to the process of internalization of ‘ervah. In the
end, both objective and subjective orientations are present within the same
legal institution, their precise reaches negotiated in the sources, as a hybrid
and complex legal discourse emerges in the interdiction to recite holy words
in the presence of nakedness.
10. External Sociocultural Context and Inner-halakhic

Hermeneutics: Toward a Possible Reconciliation?
The second part of this article has followed a double track and examined
how both external historical facts and inner-halakhic hermeneutics can be
mined to explain the evolution of the prohibition to recite holy words in
the presence of ‘ervah. As we near the end of our study, we would like to
offer some tentative observations toward a possible reconciliation of these
two approaches – acknowledging humbly that the transition from textual
findings to historical reconstruction is never simple.
Let us momentarily broaden the temporal horizon and consider other
illustrations of internalization processes, taken this time from later strata of
halakhic literature. Elliott Horowitz has documented the evolution of the
identity of Amalek, whom the Torah famously commands to blot out from the
face of the Earth. Originally a flesh-and-blood, tangible, physical enemy that
must be thoroughly annihilated, Amalek became a largely allegorized figure
in medieval Jewish thought, when his mention was creatively understood

as a code word for the “evil inclination,” the mystical “primordial serpent,”
or sometimes as a symbol of doubt; in other words, medieval Amalek had
largely morphed into a reality of the inner world.96 In a completely different
context, Avi Sagi and Zvi Zohar have found that the “acceptance of the
commandments” (qabbalat ‘ol mitsvot), one of the crucial steps in the process
of conversion to Judaism, was originally conceived as a formal speech act
entirely divorced from inner intent. It is only in responsa from the nineteenth
and the twentieth centuries that this act of acceptance became a subjective
ideological commitment to practice the mitsvot.97
These findings are not limited to Judaism, and similar phenomena
have been pointed out in other faiths. One good illustration may be found
in the writings of Paul Tillich, who long ago noted that a vision of religion
as essentially a subjective, internal disposition reflects a quintessentially
Protestant form of spirituality, whereas a typically Catholic point of view
perceives religion as objective and quantifiable, requiring correct and
definable performance.98
It would therefore appear that the processes of internalization are much
broader than initially estimated. In our opinion, if the move toward subjec-
tivism transcends the epochs and the cultures, it is because the possibility of
such a move is built into the very fabric of the system. In fact, a shift toward
the inner world may well be one of the major hermeneutical tools that a
traditional system of values resorts to when the previous comprehension
of a given concept is no longer tenable in the wake of a new reality. In other
words, the potential for internalization may be understood as an expression of
the resilience and conservatism of a religious system of thought. Confronted
with a challenge to its long-held worldview, the traditional mind will often
refuse to discard the empty husk of a given legal or conceptual category,
and will rather choose to infuse it, creatively or apologetically—a judgment
of values depending on the observer’s own standpoint on the issue—with
new meaning.
96 Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2006), 107–46.
97 Avi Sagi and Zvi Zohar, Transforming Identity: The Ritual Transformation from
Gentile to Jew—Structure and Meaning (New York: Continuum, 2007), 223–51.
98 Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought (New York: Touchstone, 1968), 228–30.
The disconnect between an age-old concept and contemporary realities

may come in many forms and guises. Sometimes a given fact of existence
simply ceases to be, as in the disappearance of the tribe of Amalek, which
must then be replaced with an allegorical alternative. Sometimes the social
underpinnings of a given legal disposition change abruptly, as in the reor-
ganization of modern European Jewish communities along new lines of
voluntary commitment to the commandments, which caused a shift in the
halakhic norms regulating the process of conversion to Judaism. Sometimes
a general dissatisfaction with the old forms of worship leads to a search
for more sincere expressions of spirituality, as expressed in the doctrinal
separation between Catholicism and Protestantism; and so on. Comparing
how a religious system reacts, case by case, to the loss of relevance of one of
its traditional categories of thought is likely to show considerable variation,
as the particulars of each situation shape the strategies employed to face the
challenge and their eventual outcome.
Applying this insight to the paradigms of the prohibition to recite holy
words when facing nakedness leads to the suggestion that the evolution of
the interdiction is ultimately best explained as the result of subtle patterns
of interactions between the external sociocultural context of the talmudim
and the contingencies of inner-halakhic legal development. Thus, I would
like to suggest that the move toward more subjectivism ensured the apparent
continuity of the halakhic system in a world where the entanglement of sight,
desire, and sexuality was perceived to be increasingly problematic. Instead of
being created ex nihilo, new norms were seamlessly built off older regulations.
Thus, the reception in the halakhic realm of the ubiquitous late-antique
negative judgment of the erotic vision arguably resulted in the emergence
of the subjective paradigm of the prohibition. In other words, it was the
encounter between the rejection of visual eros, on the one hand, and the
ancient regulations of nudity in the presence of the divine, on the other hand,
which resulted in the subjective paradigm of the prohibition, predicated on
a legal rationale of sexual distraction. In a similar fashion, the Babylonian
principle of “libbo ro’eh” is the probable reflection in the halakhic field of
Zoroastrian sensitivities prohibiting the physical proximity of the heart and
the sex organs, and was ingeniously grafted onto the preexisting regulations
by means of a metaphor according to which the heart can “see.”
The two tracks (sociocultural context and legal hermeneutics) can
therefore be perceived to represent the two sides of the same coin, and the
switch toward more subjectivism may be perceived as a practical defense

mechanism of a resilient halakhic system challenged to adapt to evolving
social sensitivities.
Summary and Broader Perspectives
Let us recapitulate succinctly our findings. As we have seen (part 1), the
prohibition of reciting holy words in the presence of nakedness is expressed
by two different paradigms (objective and subjective); additionally, we have
identified two later subvariants of the objective paradigm: Rava’s visibility
criterion anchored in Deuteronomy 23:15 and the Babylonian principle of
“libbo ro’eh.”
The objective paradigm of the prohibition is concerned with the offensive
encounter of the naked (understood in strict anatomic terms) and the sacred
in the same physical space. The subjective paradigm, on the other hand, gives
a psychological definition for ‘ervah and insists that a male who is sexually
aroused is unworthy of reciting the Shema or other blessings.
The results of the analysis have confirmed, to a large extent, the relevance
of the theoretical models developed by other scholars in the field: the sub-
jective paradigm and the “libbo ro’eh” subvariant of the objective paradigm
were likely influenced by the neighboring cultures’ own attitudes toward
similar questions; similarly, the general evolution of the prohibition may be
seen as a good illustration, some local specificities notwithstanding, of the
late antique rise of a new rabbinic “discourse of subjectivity.”
We have suggested that the two tracks (sociocultural context and
legal hermeneutics) reflect two different but complementary aspects of the
same phenomenon, and that the internalization processes may be read as
an ingenious way for the resilient halakhic system to adjust to its shifting
surroundings. Thus, it is arguably the encounter between the widespread
rejection of visual eros, on the one hand, and the ancient regulations of nudity
in the presence of the divine, on the other hand, which generated the subjective
paradigm predicated on a legal rationale of personal unworthiness due to
sexual stimulation. Similarly, the reception of Zoroastrian notions arguably
led to the principle of “libbo ro’eh” being grafted, by means of metaphorical
language, onto preexisting regulations.
As a final perspective, let us briefly broaden the temporal horizon once
again. I believe that the conclusions of this article prove relevant to understand
some of the most modern manifestations of modesty (tseni‘ut), and that

the changing conceptions of ‘ervah may be critical for understanding the
late-twentieth century appearance of dress regulations for Orthodox Jewish
women. Further research, clearly, is necessary here. Let us say simply, in
summary, that the rabbinic creativity invested over many centuries to deal
with the complexities of the sugya resulted in an impressive accumulated body
of commentaries, responsa, and other texts, which could eventually be built
upon as raw material for the authors of the dress regulations for Orthodox
women. Eventually, these authors transformed this rich material from a
prohibition against reciting holy words in the presence of nakedness into a
fully fleshed-out obligation for women to dress modestly. This revolution,
which I hope to examine in the future, all began when later talmudic sages
reinvented the millennium-old prohibition of juxtaposing the naked and
the sacred.

Bloch

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bloch

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

When the Naked Encounters the Sacred:

The Two Paradigms of the Prohibition to Recite

[Diné Israel, Volume 34 (2020) (5781), pp. 141*-172*]

various respects, they nevertheless rely on largely different sets of interpretive

A preliminary presentation of the sugya from b. Berakhot 24a will lead us to

1. Female Body Parts Defined as Nakedness: A First Introduction

R. Isaac said: A handbreadth [exposed] in a woman constitutes

Rav Ḥisda said: A woman’s leg is nakedness, as it says: “Uncover

2 MS Munich: ‫למאי הלכתא‬.

“Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be

2. Three Questions on B. Berakhot 24a

Third, the criterion employed by the amoraic rulings on b. Ber. 24a

3. Two Divergent Visions of Nakedness

31 M. Ḥal. 2:3 clearly proves this point.

second definition, however, is inherently more expansive and dynamic; it

4. One Prohibition, Two Paradigms

naked actor, male or female, is perfectly sufficient to trigger the application

36 As evidenced by the overwhelming majority of the sources quoted above, which

41 This opens the door to other possible forms of disembodied nakedness—for

Objective (old) Subjective (new)

5. The Subjective Paradigm: Broader Historical Perspectives

6. Alternative Versions of the Objective Paradigm

54 Most notably Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim chapter 75.

emphasizes the visibility of the nakedness.57 Can this position be reconciled

status of a “lantern” and qualifies as an ‘ashashit; as a result, an ‘ervah, when

is consequently forbidden to recite the Shema in its presence. The stammaitic

65 B. Ber. 25b and b. Šabb. 150a.

7. His Heart Sees His Nakedness

Christine Hayes made an important contribution to the field of rabbinics when

8. The External Track: Historical Context

of Biblical Gender (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000); eadem, “Regulating

sources, from Mesopotamia to Israel to Greece, we find nearly

84 Neis, Sense of Sight, 113.

Furthermore, nudity was not shunned in Greco-Roman religious cere-

9. The Internal Track: Subjectivization of the Concept of ‘Ervah

10. External Sociocultural Context and Inner-halakhic

in medieval Jewish thought, when his mention was creatively understood

The disconnect between an age-old concept and contemporary realities

switch toward more subjectivism may be perceived as a practical defense

Summary and Broader Perspectives

some of the most modern manifestations of modesty (tseni‘ut), and that

You might also like

[Diné Israel, Volume 34 (2020) (5781), pp. 141-172]